Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

The death penalty. An issue that places the USA in the same august company as Iran, China, Libya and Russia has always interested Matty the Damned. Which is why this article caught his malign attention this morning as he sorted through his daily email digest.

This is considered by many to be a "controversial topic" so Milker and the more delicate types will probably want to sit this one out.

The article (from MSNBC) deals with whether or not the current practice of lethal injection constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" under the American legal framework and ponders the question of banning this method of dispatching those deemed to horrid to remain in society.

Now Matty the Damned is not really concerned with whether or not forums members are pro or anti death penalty. By all means post your views, but that subject seems pretty well decided in the US.

Rather I wonder if people concerned with ensuring that executions in the States are painless and suffering free (as far as is possible) for the condemned or should excruciating agony be part of the deal? If so, what methods do people favour? Should capital punishment be conducted in private or out in public for all to see?

For the record Matty the Damned is opposed to the use of capital punishment which has not been used in his country since 1967.

If I have anything to say about cruelty and the death sentence, I would say that it's not painful enough, and the need to execute the prisoner in a more expeditious manner.

I hear on the news all the time about someone that (example) broke into a house in 1982, raped and murdered a 14 year old girl, then killed the rest of the family, and they'll just be getting executed more than 2 decades after the fact, some even die in prison of old age.

Anyway, I think that in these cases, they need to be fully conscious and tortured in a manner as painful as they inflicted on their victim, until they are dead.

And I think that the appeals process should allow for no more than 2 years in prison.

Milker the delicate one is very interested with this topic. I will clearly say that I am totally against the death penalty to start with, whatever the crime is, but this is not the subject, however it must affect my reply so I have to state it.

I never thought about whether the execution should be "accessible to the public" or not, but my initial reaction would be "I don't care", as long as I am not forced to watch it. If people want to watch someone die, whether they are related to the crime or not, i don't care, not my problem.

As for suffering, I doubt that any family that has had to be part of a crime will ever say that the punishment has been enough. They will always have the dreaded detail of how their family member or friend died, and the sentence will never look as "just". So many times I hear "YOU WILL NEVER SUFFER AS MUCH AS SHE DID". No he will never, people think, and the family will never get over it.

But may he did, maybe this lethal injection was excruciating, 100 times worse than what he did, we don't know. My view is that the death penalty is two folds, 1) provide means for families and friends to get over the crime, 2) scare the shit of potential murderers. It doesn't seem to work, and could result in "cruel and unusual punishment", so my method is "pain free" if death has to occur.

Milker the delicate one is very interested with this topic. I will clearly say that I am totally against the death penalty to start with, whatever the crime is, but this is not the subject, however it must affect my reply so I have to state it.

I never thought about whether the execution should be "accessible to the public" or not, but my initial reaction would be "I don't care", as long as I am not forced to watch it. If people want to watch someone die, whether they are related to the crime or not, i don't care, not my problem.

As for suffering, I doubt that any family that has had to be part of a crime will ever say that the punishment has been enough. They will always have the dreaded detail of how their family member or friend died, and the sentence will never look as "just". So many times I hear "YOU WILL NEVER SUFFER AS MUCH AS SHE DID". No he will never, people think, and the family will never get over it.

But may he did, maybe this lethal injection was excruciating, 100 times worse than what he did, we don't know. My view is that the death penalty is two folds, 1) provide means for families and friends to get over the crime, 2) scare the shit of potential murderers. It doesn't seem to work, and could result in "cruel and unusual punishment", so my method is "pain free" if death has to occur.

Milker.

I doubt that Charles Manson killed all of his victims with a quick shot that put them to sleep and then stopped their heart.

I will never agree with a death penalty, until you can guarantee that you will NEVER execute an innocent person. As to how to legally kill someone I will always believe that humane is the way to go, otherwise we are no different from Charles Manson, because we would be deriving pleasure from the intentional and painful death of another human being.

The British Government, for several years prior to abolishing the death penalty re-defined 'murder' (in 1959 I think) which gave the effect of instantly lowering the murder rate thus manipulating the figures which showed the inevitable post abolition effect, which was, surprise! an increase in the murder rate. The Politicians at the time were thus able to claim that there was no increase and the temporary abolition should stay.

The murder rate in Britain today is now approximately 100 times greater per head of population than it was in 1969.

The average murderer in Britain today serves around 6 years in prison, in a cell with all modern facilities and comforts. He is allowed access to counselling, education, leisure activities and recreation; oh! and drugs, tobacco and alcohol are all freely available if you know the right people. After half the sentence he'll be moved to an open prison from where the ones who don't simply walk free will be able to go shopping, to the pub or other places of interest.

I believe that all murderers should forfeit their own life.

I believe that, allowing for a reasonable time for appeals that it should be swiftly conducted, more time than necessary on death row is just as inhumane, if not more so than the execution.

I believe that any police or court officer deliberately fabricating, ignoring or concealing evidence which could prove innocence should suffer the same fate.

Lethal injection is as good as any, it is cheap to administer and if done correctly should be quick and painless, and if they really have murdered someone I don't really care if it's not.

Executions should not be a public spectacle but the victims' immediate family should be able to witness.

The British Government, for several years prior to abolishing the death penalty re-defined 'murder' (in 1959 I think) which gave the effect of instantly lowering the murder rate thus manipulating the figures which showed the inevitable post abolition effect, which was, surprise! an increase in the murder rate. The Politicians at the time were thus able to claim that there was no increase and the temporary abolition should stay.

The murder rate in Britain today is now approximately 100 times greater per head of population than it was in 1969.

The average murderer in Britain today serves around 6 years in prison, in a cell with all modern facilities and comforts. He is allowed access to counselling, education, leisure activities and recreation; oh! and drugs, tobacco and alcohol are all freely available if you know the right people. After half the sentence he'll be moved to an open prison from where the ones who don't simply walk free will be able to go shopping, to the pub or other places of interest.

I believe that all murderers should forfeit their own life.

I believe that, allowing for a reasonable time for appeals that it should be softly conducted, more time than necessary on death row is just as inhumane, if not more so than the execution.

I believe that any police or court officer deliberately fabricating, ignoring or concealing evidence which could prove innocence should suffer the same fate.

Lethal injection is as good as any, it is cheap to administer and if done correctly should be quick and painless, and if they really have murdered someone I don't really care if it's not.

Executions should not be a public spectacle but the victims' immediate family should be able to witness.

John.

Well, we wouldn't want to punish people that rip a childs head off and skull fuck it.

The rot has continued since then and we now have convicted murderers suing the Police and Government for "violations of their human rights" just because they are temporarily forced to go cold turkey on the drugs. The worst part is that the Government actually pay.

Tsk Tsk me if you must but I believe in the death penalty for crimes of murder. I forget where I heard it but I thought lethal injection was humane, that it paralyzes the organs. Honestly why should anyone care if they are in pain when they go? Some murderers have tortured their victims before killing them, imagine the victim's pain.

I guess I am just an eye for an eye type of person when it comes to the death penalty. And what do you mean by public? As in any person can go? I wouldn't mind seeing one if it was an injection, I don't think I could watch a person get fried in a chair.

I believe that of the ways that a person could be put to death lethal injection would by far more humane. But I really don't give a rats ass if it hurts them or not. They should have thought about it before they murdered someone. I am however in agreement with Joe and that is do everything science has to offer to make sure, that someone is not getting wrongly put to death.

I guess I am just an eye for an eye type of person when it comes to the death penalty. And what do you mean by public? As in any person can go? I wouldn't mind seeing one if it was an injection, I don't think I could watch a person get fried in a chair.

In that article I explore the notion of deterrence and the increasing tendency (particularly in the US) for capital punishment to be "medicalised" in an effort to render the practice more palatable to a squeamish public. People should be aware that the blog article contains links to confronting material.

Wow, death penalty for drugs, now that is a bit severe. I think the person should be able to choose what way they would like to exit this world. Now that would be a twist but you only see that on Oz. I guess I'm saying the punishment should fit the crime. You rape someone, child for instance, then clip his manhood. Rape a woman the same thing or the person gets raped...drug runner or whatever, tack on the max no early release. Hey, I know I sound barbaric to some but that's just me. I don't think anyone should get a tap on the wrist. I'm not speaking of people who are innocent of their crime, rare but it happens. In that instance, the person should get back a mill for every year they spent behind bars...I know, silly thinking on my part but just saying....

Someone remind me how many death row convictions have recently been shown to have been in error after DNA stuff? For this reason alone capital punishment in immoral, or at the very least in the majority of cases.

Someone remind me how many death row convictions have recently been shown to have been in error after DNA stuff? For this reason alone capital punishment in immoral, or at the very least in the majority of cases.

You're talking about people that were tried, convicted, and executed before DNA testing existed.

I do not support the death penalty under any circumstances. Not even if you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt an individuals guilt.

In the interest of compromise, however, I think it should be allowed by the state, but not carried out by the state. The victim, victims, or families of the victims should be permitted to kill with their own hand those found guilty of a capital offense, by any method they deem suitable so long as: (1) they are in the same room with the person to be executed and (2) they remain in the room until it is certain their victim is dead and (3) they dispose of the body.

This way, society as a whole does not take on the moral burden of executions. The individuals carrying out the sentence would carry the moral burden both here and in the hereafter. And boy, would they EVER get closure - in spades.

This is one of the reasons I switched my major in school to Psychology instead of Criminal Justice. I do have an associate's in Law Enforcement and close to a bachelor's in criminal justice. In lethal injection, people suffer. If something were done to my daughter or grandchildren that was indescribably horrible, then I would want to see the person suffer. There are too many people who are innocent in the system (prison). But this is not about living in prison (although these people on death row do for years) but about the death penalty. I don't think it should be for public viewing, because, as I've seen in life and in my studies, there's a lot of people who just get off on watching that type of thing. I think that would perpetuate more violence. Definitely the victim's family should be able to watch the execution. I could not be the one in the prison with the job of administering the drugs that kill a person, however. I watched the movie Faces of Death (the first one) where they showed 1)a person getting fried and 2)the gas chamber. The person in the electric chair had tape put over his eyes because otherwise his eyes would have popped out. It was a really gross thing to see. The gas chamber seemed to be the most humane, as the person who got put to death there only had to take a big inhalation of the gas and passed out, then nature took its course. DNA changed the future of criminal justice forever. I just saw on t.v. where someone who had been in prison for 20 years was just let out because DNA evidence showed he didn't commit the rape he was found guilty on. I know for a fact (since a detective taught one of the classes I just took) that the DNA backlog in Indiana is two years! And on a case they need it ASAP, it's a month. I guess, after all this rattling, I don't really know what to believe on the death penalty. I think all doubts about the person being guilty MUST be exhausted. If there's ANY doubt, the person should be held until that doubt in question is answered. Hey, did anyone ever see the movie Hurricane with Denzel Washington about the fighter Ruben Carter, the boxer who was sentenced to die then eventually was found innocent?

Logged

I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

This is one of the reasons I switched my major in school to Psychology instead of Criminal Justice. I do have an associate's in Law Enforcement and close to a bachelor's in criminal justice. In lethal injection, people suffer. If something were done to my daughter or grandchildren that was indescribably horrible, then I would want to see the person suffer. There are too many people who are innocent in the system (prison). But this is not about living in prison (although these people on death row do for years) but about the death penalty. I don't think it should be for public viewing, because, as I've seen in life and in my studies, there's a lot of people who just get off on watching that type of thing. I think that would perpetuate more violence. Definitely the victim's family should be able to watch the execution. I could not be the one in the prison with the job of administering the drugs that kill a person, however. I watched the movie Faces of Death (the first one) where they showed 1)a person getting fried and 2)the gas chamber. The person in the electric chair had tape put over his eyes because otherwise his eyes would have popped out. It was a really gross thing to see. The gas chamber seemed to be the most humane, as the person who got put to death there only had to take a big inhalation of the gas and passed out, then nature took its course. DNA changed the future of criminal justice forever. I just saw on t.v. where someone who had been in prison for 20 years was just let out because DNA evidence showed he didn't commit the rape he was found guilty on. I know for a fact (since a detective taught one of the classes I just took) that the DNA backlog in Indiana is two years! And on a case they need it ASAP, it's a month. I guess, after all this rattling, I don't really know what to believe on the death penalty. I think all doubts about the person being guilty MUST be exhausted. If there's ANY doubt, the person should be held until that doubt in question is answered. Hey, did anyone ever see the movie Hurricane with Denzel Washington about the fighter Ruben Carter, the boxer who was sentenced to die then eventually was found innocent?

I really doubt there are many innocent people in prison, I'm sure it happens occasionally, but are we supposed to let 999 murderers, rapists, child molesters, and druggies out cause 1 person got sent to prison by mistake?

I should be serving 100 years in prison already for all the things that I did in my life that were unlawful.

But back to the subject, it's all about torture and revenge. I totally agree with Joe (Killfoile) when he says "As to how to legally kill someone I will always believe that humane is the way to go, otherwise we are no different from Charles Manson, because we would be deriving pleasure from the intentional and painful death of another human being."

I cannot fathom how terrible it is for parents to know how their little girl has been tortured and mutilated but, although impossible to achieve in those cases, I believe that reason must go beyond revenge, and that someone has to realize that torturing back will not bring their little girl back and will NOT ease their pain either, even if they get pleasure at the time the revenge is done. It will never be enough.

It is not to say that a criminal should think "oh well, I can go at it, the worst that will happen to me is an injection". Izprince, if we follow your reasoning, then it's even better for the criminal, only 2 years in prison, a injection and hop, it's all over.

I think that in the US the prison sentences are completely disparate and should be completely reviewed. And don't get me started with the "without parole" thingie.. but I digress

I should be serving 100 years in prison already for all the things that I did in my life that were unlawful.

But back to the subject, it's all about torture and revenge. I totally agree with Joe (Killfoile) when he says "As to how to legally kill someone I will always believe that humane is the way to go, otherwise we are no different from Charles Manson, because we would be deriving pleasure from the intentional and painful death of another human being."

I cannot fathom how terrible it is for parents to know how their little girl has been tortured and mutilated but, although impossible to achieve in those cases, I believe that reason must go beyond revenge, and that someone has to realize that torturing back will not bring their little girl back and will NOT ease their pain either, even if they get pleasure at the time the revenge is done. It will never be enough.

It is not to say that a criminal should think "oh well, I can go at it, the worst that will happen to me is an injection". Izprince, if we follow your reasoning, then it's even better for the criminal, only 2 years in prison, a injection and hop, it's all over.

I think that in the US the prison sentences are completely disparate and should be completely reviewed. And don't get me started with the "without parole" thingie.. but I digress

I'm sure if someone raped and murdered your mom or sister or what have you, you'd want their head cut off and stuck on a pike.

People that are against the death penalty are all hypocrites for that reason.

And personally, if it happened to someone in my family, the bastard better hope he got convicted, because the things I would do to him would make lethal injection look like a day at Disney Land.

I'm sure if someone raped and murdered your mom or sister or what have you, you'd want their head cut off and stuck on a pike.

People that are against the death penalty are all hypocrites for that reason.

I was waiting for that answer, i'm surprised it didn't come earlier. My grand-parents were murdered in Auschwitz, my sister almost got raped at 8yo (I came back to the hotel room and saw a hotel employee starting to fuck her), my mum died of lung cancer and my dad of alcoholism, add that to the mix if I wanted to blame those cigarette and liquor companies. is that enough for you to consider that I've had some experience and I'm not living in lalaland?

I really doubt there are many innocent people in prison, I'm sure it happens occasionally, but are we supposed to let 999 murderers, rapists, child molesters, and druggies out cause 1 person got sent to prison by mistake?

Rubbish. We have the ability to sentence people to life in prison without any possibility of parole. This notion that if we abolish the death penalty we are letting everyone out of prison is a ludicrous and poorly thought out statement.

I used to support the death penalty until I began to see people being freed from death row and wondered how many people who were not guilty of the crime which they were convicted of were put to death.

And it's still not an all or nothing. You can still get a death penalty sentence without any dna evidence being presented in the case by EITHER side because not everything is subject to a dna test to determine the facts. What that means, in effect, is that we are STILL using many of the very same "tried and true" methods that wrongly convicted people in the past to this very day.

We are not perfect people and by extension, our justice system is imperfect. A justice system that is capable of making such grave errors should never be granted the ability to pass down an irrevocable sentence, which the death penalty is.

If we are wrong about a single person and put them to death, we become party to murder ourselves. State sanctioned and legal, but intentionally killing an innocent person is NEVER right, whether it's in the act of homicide or the act of meting out "justice", it's simply a risk not worth taking when we have other options available to us that are just as effective at removing a dangerous person from society without running the risk of killing an innocent person.

It's simply an unnecessary and potentially tragic sentence to impose a death penalty.

And certainly I understand that there are some monsters out there that don't deserve to live, but my sense of justice for ALL overrules my need for vengeance. I cannot in good conscience sanction the death penalty when I know that our justice system is deeply flawed, sometimes intentionally by overzealous prosecutors, sometimes unintentionally by people who really believe that the person they have charged with a crime is guilty.....but it's flawed all the same. Innocent people get convicted of crimes and guilty people get exonerated. We've seen it time and again in our system.

At the very least, if we do wrongly convict someone, we can make some amends to the person who we wronged in that way. Once the death penalty is carried out, that option is off the table forever. There is no way to bring someone back to life, but they can freed if we have wrongly convicted them and locked them away from society.

It's a tough debate and I know that if someone killed one of my loved ones a part of me would like nothing better than to see them die for that crime, but I still would not support it.

And quite honestly, I will never understand anyone who takes the line that it doesn't matter if we occasionally impose a death sentence on someone who is not guilty of that crime because most of those we do impose the death penalty on are guilty. Killing a wrongly convicted person is a horrible miscarriage of justice from which there is no going back. If a person can support occasionally killing an innocent person as long as the majority are guilty, then how are we really any better than those we think deserve to die?

And we have such a simple solution to avoiding that without putting society at any undue risk; life in prison with no possibility of parole. I see no benefit in risking the state sanctioned execution of an innocent person when we have alternatives available to us.

I'm sure if someone raped and murdered your mom or sister or what have you, you'd want their head cut off and stuck on a pike.

People that are against the death penalty are all hypocrites for that reason.

And personally, if it happened to someone in my family, the bastard better hope he got convicted, because the things I would do to him would make lethal injection look like a day at Disney Land.

But isn't that what separates us from the criminals? They act on their base impulses and desires.

Aristotle said "The law is reason free from passion" and endorsing the death penalty because you have a thirst for revenge is the antithesis of what our justice system should be about.

We have the means to prevent a person from ever harming society again without the death penalty. Another death is not going to fill that empty space in your life left by the actions of a monster with no regard for life.

And what if you are wrong? How would you feel if you sat in that room and watched a man get executed only to find out that your local forensics lab was fudging the evidence to increase the chances of conviction and the person who was put death was not the person who committed that crime?

What then? Would the family of that person be justified in seeking the death penalty against the jurors and judges and prosecutors and witnesses in that case who helped kill an innocent person?

If Aristotle, saw today, what it cost to house a death row inmate he would say, "No fucking way, juice the creep." Guys are you all willing to pay extra taxes, have you benefits cut, lose you medical prescriptions (something has to happen to get money) for the building of more prisons to house those you don't seem to want put to death?

If Aristotle, saw today, what it cost to house a death row inmate he would say, "No fucking way, juice the creep." Guys are you all willing to pay extra taxes, have you benefits cut, lose you medical prescriptions (something has to happen to get money) for the building of more prisons to house those you don't seem to want put to death?

Well, if the Democrats are in office, they'll just hike the tax on everyone that bothers to work to pay for all the leeches.

If the Republicans are in office, they'll borrow more money and increase our national debt.

What I propose is to just do away with the bloated government and let people fend for themselves, I mean I know I'd be just dandy if they quit taxing me and let me use MY MONEY that I EARNED to fund MY LIFE, unfortunately I have to help carry all the "dead elephants" who spend their whole lives on the public welfare system and Socialized Insecurity.

If Aristotle, saw today, what it cost to house a death row inmate he would say, "No fucking way, juice the creep." Guys are you all willing to pay extra taxes, have you benefits cut, lose you medical prescriptions (something has to happen to get money) for the building of more prisons to house those you don't seem to want put to death?

Perhaps we should stop putting people in jail for consensual or victimless crimes? I'm not sure that putting people in jail for smoking pot or snorting coke is a smart idea.

There are approximately 500000 people serving time in prison for possession of drugs.

There are around 3200 people sitting on death row.

I rather think we can afford to keep people who pose a REAL danger behind bars when we can waste so much money putting people in jail for getting caught with a bag of weed.

What I propose is to just do away with the bloated government and let people fend for themselves, I mean I know I'd be just dandy if they quit taxing me and let me use MY MONEY that I EARNED to fund MY LIFE, unfortunately I have to help carry all the "dead elephants" who spend their whole lives on the public welfare system and Socialized Insecurity.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

May I present that most curious and amusing of political beasts, The Libertarian.

What I propose is to just do away with the bloated government and let people fend for themselves, I mean I know I'd be just dandy if they quit taxing me and let me use MY MONEY that I EARNED to fund MY LIFE, unfortunately I have to help carry all the "dead elephants" who spend their whole lives on the public welfare system and Socialized Insecurity.

And assuming you, like the vast majority of us on this board, have HIV and your disease progresses to a point that makes you unable to work and pay taxes, are you willing to die for your beliefs and abstain from getting any kind of public assistance to help you pay for your medications and living expenses?

Can we go back to the original question, which was "in the case of death penalty, would you go for torture or not" basically.

Milker.

Oh absolutely, they should give me that job, I'd go in there with a whip, a shock stick, a baseball bat, a couple of car batteries with alligator clip electrodes, brass knuckles, and a few pounds of salt.

And assuming you, like the vast majority of us on this board, have HIV and your disease progresses to a point that makes you unable to work and pay taxes, are you willing to die for your beliefs and abstain from getting any kind of public assistance to help you pay for your medications and living expenses?

We wouldn't need the government assistance in that case.

The whole reason the drug companies gouge is because they know the government will pay them billions of dollars.

Now if nobody was buying their drugs at that price, then the price would come down, because you know they're charging like a 1000% markup on those pills to begin with.

Aside from that, there are other types of treatment that cost less than $100 a month, the FDA is so in bed with the pharmaceutical cartels that they won't let these treatments be labeled as such though.

Can we go back to the original question, which was "in the case of death penalty, would you go for torture or not" basically.

Milker.

Milkie,

I was sufficiently broad in my OP that all of the topics raised thus far are entirely on topic. Take your limp wristed complaints about hi-jacking bck to one of your own flowery threads.

MtD(Who appreciates a wide scope in debate)

Hi Matty,

I'm sorry but my knowledge of English is not broad enough to understand your reply. You are welcome to PM me if you think that I got the original post wrong. I thought your original post was trying to focus on questioning if the punishing by those medications was appropriate. I guess I should have gotten the hint in your first post and not reply, but I'm sorry to disappoint you this is an open forum, and unless prohibited by the moderators I will post whatever I feel is appropriate to answer, even if you hint that I should be excluded. Now take a deep breath and let's continue this interesting topic, or PM me if you have issues with it.

I'm sorry but my knowledge of English is not broad enough to understand your reply. You are welcome to PM me if you think that I got the original post wrong. I thought your original post was trying to focus on questioning if the punishing by those medications was appropriate. I guess I should have gotten the hint in your first post and not reply, but I'm sorry to disappoint you this is an open forum, and unless prohibited by the moderators I will post whatever I feel is appropriate to answer, even if you hint that I should be excluded. Now take a deep breath and let's continue this interesting topic, or PM me if you have issues with it.

Milker.

MIlkie,

It's funny you know, your grasp of English is always good enough until things get a bit rocky. Then suddenly you don't understand.

Just let the debate rage doll. Variety is the spice of life and all that.

The whole reason the drug companies gouge is because they know the government will pay them billions of dollars.

Now if nobody was buying their drugs at that price, then the price would come down, because you know they're charging like a 1000% markup on those pills to begin with.

Aside from that, there are other types of treatment that cost less than $100 a month, the FDA is so in bed with the pharmaceutical cartels that they won't let these treatments be labeled as such though.

I don't even know where to begin with such a flawed premise. But let's assume (for the sake of the discussion) that last part is true.

But where are you going to get a 100 dollars a month if you are unable to work? Where are you gonna live? How are you going to eat? Who is going to pay for your doctor visits?

Sure drug companies gouge us, but most of us are not getting our drugs from the government run programs.....most of us are getting them through our insurance companies. How does one explain that? It's private sector and everyone "knows" that everything the private sector does is so MUCH BETTER than a government run program which is why 30 percent of your private insurance dollar goes to administrative costs and only 2-3 percent each tax dollar spent on health care programs goes for administrative costs. It probably also explains why in Canada where they have universal public health care, they pay much much less per capita for health care and medication than our so much better private sector solution to health care which not only costs more per capita than any country with universal health care, but also leaves 45 million with no access to health care AT ALL.

If Aristotle, saw today, what it cost to house a death row inmate he would say, "No fucking way, juice the creep." Guys are you all willing to pay extra taxes, have you benefits cut, lose you medical prescriptions (something has to happen to get money) for the building of more prisons to house those you don't seem to want put to death?

Wow... I wonder how so many other countries do it then? This is the same tired argument you've offered repeatedly regarding national healthcare.

It's funny you know, your grasp of English is always good enough until things get a bit rocky.

It's funny you say that, I was expecting it. I actually don't understand most of your posts, but I think (and hope) I get the basics of them. I think you can see in my writing that i'm not native. I have a pretty good understanding but you're using language that is not easily understood by non-natives, so we have to think a lot, which is good.

Now that you said you wanted the debate to be open wider, then let's go for it. I was trying to keep the debate closed to what you originally suggested. Next time, mention that you're open for a wider debate.